Interview: Watch Dogs was delayed because people got *too good* at hacking

The reason for Watch Dogs delay, according to a new interview with the games' creators? Early play testers were coming up with inventive ways to use hacks that actually caused the game mechanics to break.

If it's something like this which actually seems like a better excuse to delay it then they would of just said "Oh it's so we can polish it...BECAUSE people got too good at hacking and it needed work".

Honestly? I don't care why it was delayed, or even that is was delayed at all. Sure it sucks we have to wait longer but what ever.

Would you really want an incomplete game shipped earlier? Personally I get furious when games release before they should, and need a patch to even function. Are you forgetting Battlefield 4 so soon? Games need to be complete and WORKING, on DAY ONE, where all you need is the disc. Patching should be for balancing issues only, or for bugs that do manage to slip past what should be a mandatory bug testing phase (at least more thorough than what most modern games go through).

If anything, we need more companies taking a hint from this and holding back their game to do more QA and bug testing.

All that being said, I have no idea the condition Watch Dogs will be released in. Who knows, after this delay it may end up still being a buggy mess, but the overall idea of delaying a game for QA purposes is a great one and should be applauded, not met with hate and death threats.

Back when they had that live stream on twitch talking about it they explained that they needed to polish the games mechanics. They explained that they weren't up to snuff for how they wanted the game to play out, so instead of releasing it and patching it, they decided to delay it. Its not their fault people think polishing a game just means improving the graphics.

Using the word polish for game development generally means make everything look and run smooth. you know that's what polish does, it smooths up the surface.

still cant trust them. Remember far cry 3 at e3 ? good it was looking trees etc. And when it was released it wasnt the same. Ubisoft is good to hide stuff and telling us gamers that they haven't downgraded the game. I cant wait too see the division when its ''ready''.

I love all this talk of "trust" and "being dishonest" with gaming companies.

Where else in the world would people use words like that in regards to massive corporations? Are there any large corporations you "trust"? Do you trust the banks, Walmart, McDonalds? People get too personal with gaming companies, talking about them like they're good friends or a family member who broke their trust.

Let your money do the talking. If you don't like a game, don't buy it. If you are seriously disapproving of a company's actions, boycott them and try to start a movement where people of a like mind do the same. If enough people aren't buying their games, they'll get the message.

It's absolutely fine to be angry or disappointed when a game isn't as it is shown or advertised to be. The backlash is what gets things changed. But please don't make it personal. The thing is, they don't have to earn our trust. If they make a bad game or misrepresent it, there will be a backlash, and they will probably change their practices for the next time, and if their next game is a great one people will buy it regardless of whether they "trust" them.

Case in point, Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age Inquisition is looking like it's going to be a great game. Sure I remain skeptical and probably won't pre-order and buy it day one, our of caution from being burned again. But after watching some gameplay videos, if it turns out to look good I'll buy it that day, regardless of whether I still disapprove of what they did with DA2.

Yeah, I think fixing AI is definitely part of polishing a game. Also would explain why the gaming press was allowed very limited access. Could be that the AI only "worked" in some limited environments.

"Watch Dogs: The city-hacking blockbuster is here". How can anyone not read this before approving. Additionally, the OP, bensillis, knows this.

The first paragraph: "The windy city, giant robot spiders and real-life hacks. Watch Dogs has finally arrived. It’s been four months since Watch Dogs, Ubisoft’s crowning jewel of next-gen gaming, was originally supposed to launch – but we’re currently in Chicago, the IRL setting for the game, still talking with the development crew about the upcoming release of the game. It’s now set to hit shelves next month, May 27 worldwide to be exact, but just why did the game get delayed? Has it been worth the wait?"

Bensillis nitpicks a specific question in a long interview as the interview's introduction.

You can clearly tell who only reads everything they need to on N4G: Meltic in particular.

Kevin Shortt, story designer for Watch Dogs, said,"...sometimes what was happening is that the game was doing a good job at encouraging the player to explore the possibilities of hacking, but sometimes they'd go really deep into the manipulation and get really creative about things – it would create a trigger and unexpected results. It wouldn't necessarily encourage them to continue to do it, but those kind of clashes happened."

It's a great interview about how they changed WATCHDOGS to encourage more exploration and hacking. It's disheartening that the fifth comment had to approach this issue with presentation and comments, in my opinion. Think about it.

If I remember Liberty City is one area of Chicago (I may be wrong) that was somewhat recreated in GTA 3. Still it's the first game I've been following that has it re-created to the extent this game is.

Again, the GTA3 Liberty City could be of a different place however I remember reading something about that.